Washington Post Editorial: Chasing Terrorists

[illinoisprogressive]

IN MAY 1998, President Bill Clinton announced that his policy would be "to capture terrorists, no matter where they hide." After al-Qaeda attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, there was widespread agreement that neither Mr. Clinton nor President Bush had pursued that policy with sufficient dedication. The Sept. 11 commission recommended that, for every actual or potential terrorist sanctuary, the United States "should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power" (italics added). So why is everyone from Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to Republican Mitt Romney beating up on Barack Obama for endorsing that common-sense position?

In a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center last week, delivered after a National Intelligence Estimate reported that al-Qaeda had reconstituted menacingly in the mountainous Waziristan region of Pakistan, Mr. Obama said that he would condition military aid to Pakistan on its willingness to go after foreign fighters and the Taliban. He continued: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

For this, Mr. Obama was ridiculed by Mr. Romney during a Republican presidential candidates debate Sunday on ABC's "This Week" as a "Dr. Strangelove" who is "going to bomb our allies." At a Democratic debate Tuesday, sponsored by the AFL-CIO and MSNBC, Christopher J. Dodd called Mr. Obama "highly irresponsible" for saying that "we may be willing unilaterally to invade a nation here that we are trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere." And Ms. Clinton chimed in: "I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals. . . . I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that, and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamist extremists who are in bed with al-Qaeda and Taliban."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802085.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[tularetom]

1. Whoever wrote that is going to get fired

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. What is more shocking than the comments of those attacking Obama is

the fact that the Washington Post would let an article like this in their propaganda sheet. Somebody must have slipped it in as the Post has firmly established itself as an Administration mouthpiece.

[Meldread]

3. Damn it, he didn't get the memo!

Sigh, he's going to have to be fired now. He should have gotten a clue! Obama is an insane maniac who wants to invade our allies, who is not only irresponsible but answers hypothetical questions that will DOOM our very nation! He is OBVIOUSLY not Presidential material because he was not evasive in what he would do regarding terrorist organizations. Doesn't he know he has to triangulate and make people believe he is both for attacking terrorists while at the same time against it!? Huh?! Shame on the Washington Post! Shame! Fire whoever wrote this!

:sarcasm: